coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Vinkovci.
7.  On 12 April 1993 the applicant’s house in Lički Novi was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 11 April 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
9.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed, pending the enactment of new legislation. Before the enactment of such new legislation damages for terrorist acts could not be sought.
10.  On 5 October 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.
11.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
8. The applicant was born in [Note4]1950 and lives in Miedźno, Poland.
9. In October 1991 the applicant was dismissed from work.
10. On 21 October 1991 he filed with the Częstochowa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which he requested that he be reinstated in his former post and awarded compensation.
11. On 18 May 1992 the court stayed the proceedings until the completion of criminal proceedings against the applicant, considering that the courts’ findings in those proceedings could affect the outcome of the employment dispute.
12. On 31 July 1992 the criminal court gave judgment. On 27 November 1992 the second-instance court quashed it and remitted the case for re-examination.
13. On 22 May 1995 the District Court discontinued the labour law proceedings, because three years had passed since the date of staying them.
14. On 25 July 1995 it allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed that decision.
15. On 3 November 1995 the criminal court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant, considering that the theft of two boxes of glue committed by him was of an insignificant nature. On 23 February 1996 the second-instance court acquitted the applicant.
16. On 15 May 1996 the Częstochowa District Court gave judgment in respect of part of his claim. It reinstated the applicant in his former post. On 6 August 1996 the second-instance court dismissed his employer’s appeal against that judgment.
17. On 4 March 1997 the Częstochowa District Court ordered an expert opinion concerning the calculation of the applicant’s lost earnings. It was submitted on 26 August 1997. In September 1997 the court ordered a supplementary opinion.
18. At the hearing held on 14 January 1998 it requested the preparation of another supplementary opinion. It was submitted on 16 June 1998.
19. The court held a hearing on 5 February 1999. Subsequently, the parties exchanged their observations as to the amount of compensation for the applicant.
20. On 15 February 2000 the court held a hearing. On 20 April 2000 it ordered a supplementary expert opinion.
21. On 26 September and 14 November 2000 the court held hearings. On the former date it refused the applicant’s request for an interim order.
22. On 28 December 2000 the court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant compensation for the lost earnings. Both parties appealed.
23. On 16 May 2001 the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held a hearing.
24. On 31 May 2001 it dismissed a challenge to the participation in the proceedings of a judge lodged by the applicant’s lawyer. The court imposed a fine on the lawyer for having used that remedy in bad faith.
25. On 13 June 2001 the court dismissed both appeals against the judgment of the District Court. The defendant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
26. On 19 November 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s appeal.
THE LAW[Note5]
4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Prague.
5.  The applicant's parents owned a house with a garden and private road. On 24 April 1967 they donated their property to the State. The property was then administered by the Humpolec Municipality (město Humpolec).
6.  On 24 April 1991 the applicant requested the Municipality to conclude a restitution agreement with her, pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The Municipality refused.
7.  On 10 February 1993 the Pelhřimov District Court (okresní soud), after having held two hearings on 17 June 1992 and 9 February 1993, dismissed the applicant's action for restitution of the property in question, introduced on 31 March 1992 and completed on 8 and 16 June 1992, stating that the contract of donation had not been concluded under pressure, as envisaged by the Act.
8.  On 13 May 1993 the České Budĕjovice Regional Court (krajský soud), upon the applicant's appeal of 17 March 1993, quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
9.  On 20 October and 10 December 1993 and on 26 and 29 July 1994 the District Court held hearings.
10.  On 29 July 1994 it ordered the Municipality to restore the property to the applicant. The court, having assessed certain additional evidence, found that the applicant's parents had signed the contract of donation under pressure.
11.  On 8 December 1994 the Regional Court, on the defendant's appeal of 28 August 1994, to which the applicant had made her comments on 4 September 1994, modified the District Court's judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim for restitution. It found that the Municipality had not owned the house on 1 April 1991, as provided for in the Act, and that it had not been transferred to the Municipality after the entry into force of Act no. 172/1991 with the obligation to restore it to the former owners.
12.  On 13 February 1995 the judgment was notified to the applicant who, on 27 February 1995, filed an appeal on points of law (dovolání) with the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud), raising the question of the position of the Municipality as defendant.
13.  On 17 December 1998 the Supreme Court, to which the applicant's case had been transferred for reasons of material competence on 2 January 1996, dismissed the applicant's appeal, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court.
14.  On 23 March 1999 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnosti) claiming that the proceedings had been unreasonably long, and that her right to a fair and public hearing respecting the principle of equality of arms had been violated.
15.  On 3 August 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed her appeal, stating inter alia that there had been no unjustified delays in the proceedings. It considered that any delay in the proceedings before the Supreme Court had been caused by the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (občanský soudní řád). The decision was notified to the applicant's lawyer on 14 August 2000.
8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Wilp.
9.  On 17 December 1991, the applicant filed a request with the Voorst Municipal Council (gemeenteraad) for compensation under Article 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Wet op de Ruimtelijke Ordening) for damage caused by a partial revision of a zoning plan relating to land owned by him.
10.  This request was rejected by the Municipal Council on 27 January 1992. On 26 September 1994 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division quashed that decision, considering that the Municipal Council had unjustly failed to seek the opinion of an independent expert before determining the applicant's request, and it issued an order for costs against the Voorst municipal authorities.
11.  On 24 July 1995 the municipal authorities again refused the applicant compensation, after having consulted various experts.
12.  The applicant filed an objection (bezwaar) with the Municipal Council, which was heard before the Commission for Appeals and Objections (Commissie voor de bezwaar- en beroepsschriften) on 31 October 1995.
13.  By decision of 18 December 1995, in accordance with the advice given on 8 November 1995 by the Commission for Appeals and Objections, the Municipal Council rejected the applicant's objection as ill-founded. The applicant, who was informed of this decision on 29 December 1995, filed an appeal with the Zutphen Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) on 8 February 1996.
14.  On 27 November 1997, after two rounds of written submissions by the parties, a hearing was held before the Regional Court. In its judgment of 12 January 1998, the Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal.
15.  On 20 February 1998, the applicant filed an appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. In its decision of 3 August 1999, following a hearing held on 7 December 1998, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division accepted the applicant's appeal. It found that the decision of 18 December 1995 had not been duly reasoned. Consequently, it quashed the judgment of 12 January 1998, admitted the applicant's appeal against the decision of 18 December 1995, quashed the latter decision, ordered the Municipal Council to take a new decision with due regard to the considerations of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, and issued an order for costs against the Voorst municipal authorities.
16.  As from 3 August 1999, the applicant and the municipal authorities examined the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement, but failed to reach an agreement.
17.  In an undated decision received by the applicant's lawyer on 21 September 2001, the Municipal Council awarded the applicant compensation in an amount of 11,218.14 euros, and ordered that interest be payable on this sum as from the date of filing of the applicant's compensation request. The Municipal Council rejected the remainder of the applicant's claim.
18.  On 30 October 2001, the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Zutphen Regional Court, which rejected it on 20 January 2003. On 27 February 2003, the applicant filed an appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Dunaújváros, Hungary.
5.  The applicant kept bees in his yard. On 11 April 1995 the Dunaújváros Municipality, acting in accordance with a Decree of the City Council, ordered the applicant to remove the bees from his yard to an area where they did not disturb the neighbours. On 24 May 1995 the Fejér County Administrative Office, on the applicant's appeal of 18 April 1995, quashed the first-instance administrative decision and remitted the case to the Municipality, holding that it had failed to warn the applicant prior to taking its decision.
6.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 18 March 1996 the Municipality, as confirmed by the Administrative Office on 20 June 1996, limited the allowed population of bees to 20 families to protect the neighbours' interests and requested the applicant to remove the entities above this amount. Subsequently, on 8 July 1996 the applicant challenged these decisions before the Székesfehérvár District Court.
7.  On the applicant's complaint, on 28 February 1997 the Constitutional Court partly annulled the City Council's aforementioned Decree.
8.  On 13 January 1998 the District Court, as confirmed by the Fejér County Regional Court on 12 May 1998, quashed the administrative decisions and remitted the case to the Municipality. On 22 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review of these decisions.
9.  Meanwhile in the resumed administrative proceedings, on 8 February 1999 the Municipality, as confirmed by the City Council on 9 March 1999, again limited the allowed population of bees to 20 families and requested the applicant to keep the entities above this amount at a place where they would not disturb the neighbours. On 12 April 1999 the applicant challenged these decisions before the Fejér County Regional Court. Simultaneously, he challenged all the judges of the Regional Court for bias.
10.  On 29 September 1999 the Supreme Court appointed the Zala County Regional Court to hear the case. The court held hearings on 3 November 1999 and 1 March 2000. On the latter date, accepting the applicant's request, the court suspended the proceedings.
11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 12 June 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims. No appeal lay against this decision.
12.  Subsequently, on 24 July 2001 the applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 21 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer to assist the applicant. On 9 September 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review, holding that the decisions had been taken in order to protect public health in accordance with the law, namely Decree no. 15/1969 of the Ministry of Agriculture and local regulations.
8.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Plovdiv. He used to work as a shunter at the Bulgarian State Railways. On 15 August 1995 he was dismissed from his work for having breached disciplinary regulations.
9.  On 5 February 1996 the applicant filed with the Plovdiv District Court an action for wrongful dismissal against his former employer.
10.  On 12 March 1996 the District Court heard the applicant and his lawyer and rejected the case, ruling that the applicant’s dismissal was not amenable to judicial review. It based its decision on section 9(3) of the Decree No. 9 of 6 January 1981 and the Supreme Court’s practice, according to which employees of the State Railways dismissed for breach of disciplinary regulations could only appeal to a higher administrative body, not to a court.
11.  On 18 March 1996 the applicant appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court against the District Court’s decision. He argued that Decree No. 9 was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. He also relied on an amendment to the Labour Code of 1993, stating that it vested with the courts power to examine all appeals for wrongful dismissal, despite the provisions of Decree No. 9.
12.  By decision bearing the date 8 April 1996 the Regional Court, sitting in private, dismissed the applicant’s appeal, holding that in accordance with Decree No. 9 a judicial appeal against the applicant’s dismissal was not possible.
13.  The Regional Court’s decision was not pronounced publicly and was not served.
14.  On 4 June 1996 the case file was transmitted by the judge-rapporteur to the Regional Court’s clerical staff which made an entry in the court’s register.
15.  On 5 June 1996 the case file was transmitted to the District Court and an entry was made in its register.
16.  On 13 June 1996 the applicant submitted a petition for review (преглед по реда на надзора) to the Supreme Administrative Court.
17.  The parties were summoned for a hearing but none of them appeared.
18.  On 18 July 1997, sitting in private, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the petition for review as time barred. It held that the Regional Court’s decision had entered into force on 8 April 1996 and that the two months’ time-limit for submission of a petition for review had expired on 8 June 1996 whereas the petition had been submitted on 13 June 1996.
4.  The applicants were born in 1933 and 1936, respectively and live in Zadar, Croatia.
5.  In September 1991 the second applicant’s vehicle was requisitioned by the Croatian Army.
6.  In August 1992 she was informed that the vehicle had been destroyed.
7.  On 18 August 1995 she instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged vehicle.
8.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999, hereinafter “the 1999 Act”), the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 23 November 1999.
9.  The proceedings resumed on 24 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003, hereinafter “the 2003 Act”).
10.  The applicants claimed that members of the Croatian Army damaged their house in Vodice, Croatia, in mid-1992.
11.  On 22 August 1995 they instituted civil proceedings before the Šibenik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Šibeniku) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged house.
12.  On 20 May 1999 the Šibenik Municipal Court rejected their claim.
13.  The applicants appealed against that judgment.
14.  Pursuant to the 1999 Act, the Šibenik Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 10 December 1999. The applicants appealed against that decision. On 6 March 2000 the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) rejected their appeal.
15.  The proceedings resumed on 2 September 2003 pursuant to the 2003 Act.
16.  On 31 May 2004 the Šibenik County Court quashed the judgment of 20 May 1999 and remitted the case to the Šibenik Municipal Court for a retrial.
4.  The applicant, who was born in 1959, is currently detained in Muş Prison.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 7 November 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Tatvan Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership to an illegal organisation, namely the PKK.
7.  On 25 November 1993 the applicant was brought before the Tatvan public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Tatvan Magistrate’s Court. The same day, the investigating judge ordered that the applicant be placed in detention on remand.
8.  In an indictment dated 31 December 1993, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant. He charged him with being member of an armed gang under Article 168 of the Criminal Code.
9.  On 13 March 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.
10.  The applicant appealed. On 17 November 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court for procedural reasons.
11.  On 18 November 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court applied the decision of the Court of Cassation and sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment for membership to an illegal organisation.
12.  On 18 March 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the Diyarbakır State Security Court’s reasoning and assessment of evidence.
6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Hozat, Tunceli.
7.  Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Kozluca, a village of the Hozat district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
8.  In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Kozluca. They also destroyed the applicant's property. The applicant and his family then moved to Hozat, where they currently live.
9.  On 31 October 1994 the applicant petitioned the offices of the Prime Minister, the Tunceli governor and the governor of the state of emergency region. He complained that he had been forcibly evicted from his village by the security forces.
10.  On 16 November 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor's office in Hozat and requested that an investigation be initiated against those responsible for the evacuation of his village and the destruction of his property.
11.  On 26 January 1995 the Hozat District Governor wrote a letter in reply to the applicant stating that he could not be provided with housing as he did not fulfil the requirements of Law no. 2510 on housing.
12.  The applicant did not pursue any other domestic remedy.
13.  The applicant left his village on account of the terrorist activities in the region and there is no evidence indicating that his house was burned down.
14.  The Hozat District Governor supplied the applicant with accommodation upon his request. He further received aid for food, heating and rent. However, the applicant did not apply to the authorities to receive the monetary aid which was due at the time.
15.  On 11 January 1995 the Chief Public Prosecutor in Hozat, who had received the applicant's criminal complaints concerning his eviction from his village and destruction of his property, issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction and referred the investigation file to the District Administrative Council in Hozat in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants. The investigation is still pending before the Administrative Council.
8.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Bydgoszcz.
9.  In February 1986 the applicant and her husband divorced.
10. In June 1987 she filed with the Bydgoszcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which she sought the division of the spouses' property.
11. In 1988 and 1989 the court ordered expert opinions.
12. On 3 June 1992 it refused a request that the shares in the property be unequal.
13. On 28 May 1993 the court declined the applicant's challenge to the participation in the proceedings of one of the judges. Her appeal against that decision was subsequently rejected.
14. On 9 June 1993, in reply to the applicant's complaint, the President of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) informed her that due to the excessive length of the proceedings they had been taken under his administrative supervision.
15. On 16 July 1993 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision of 28 May 1993.
16. On 4 and 20 October 1993, as well as on 13 April and 25 May 1994, the Bydgoszcz District Court held hearings. In October 1993 the parties to the proceedings requested that certain further expert opinions be ordered.
17. On 18 April 1994 the applicant changed her claim.
18. On 10 January 1994 an expert appointed by the court submitted his opinion concerning the value of real property.
19. In a letter of 1 July 1994 the President of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court agreed with the applicant's further complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings.
20. On 8 June 1994 the court gave judgment in respect of part of the claims.
21. On 31 August 1994 the applicant requested the court to appoint an expert to assess the value of movables.
22. On 16 September 1994 the applicant's former husband lodged an appeal against the judgment of 8 June 1994.
23. On 1 December 1994 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
24. From April to 4 December 1994 the applicant lodged several complaints with the judicial authorities about the lack of progress in the proceedings, to no avail.
25. The Bydgoszcz District Court held hearings on 5 April, 25 October and 6 December 1995, 14 February, 24 April, 24 May, 3 July and 8 November 1996, as well as 5 February, 18 June, 9 July and 9 September 1997. It ordered four expert opinions.
26. On 21 May 1996 the applicant changed her claim.
27. On 23 September 1997 the court gave judgment. In the reasoning it pointed out that the applicant on several occasions had changed her claims. She appealed against that judgment.
28. The Bydgoszcz Regional Court held hearings on 25 February, 25 June and 9 July 1998.
29. On 9 July 1998 the parties reached a friendly settlement in respect of a part of the Bydgoszcz District Court's judgment. The applicant was to receive 26,150 Polish zlotys from her former husband as payment for transferring her share in the disputed property to him. She withdrew her appeal in respect of the remainder of the District Court's judgment.